Punished with a baby?
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.H/t Hot Air Read more...
So, what does "pro-life" senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, an Obama supporter, have to say about this? Katherine?
By the way, Politico has Barack Obama's political views questionnaire which he completed before running for Illinois State Senate in 1995. His answers are telling.
How can a Catholic support the guy? Let's get your take on this.
Listen to former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum, on Obama's words/audio.
UPDATE: Obama's Abortion Extremism
32 comments:
Once while talking with a couple of catholic women, they expressed how they were glad they had only boys and not girls. The reasoning is because a girl can get pregnant. Which to them is worse because the girl and her family will have to take responsibility for the child. The father doesn't have to be responsible on a day to day basis.
Yes, two "prolife" catholic mothers with the view that a women can be punished with a baby.
I have a daughter and do not see it that way. IF my daugther became a single mother,at any age, I would love to have my grandchild with/around me all the time. It wouldn't be a burden but a gift. A gift the fathter and his family would miss out on.
Anna B.
I agree with Senator Obama that in today's society and culture we should be discouraging, not encouraging, 15 year old girls from having babies.
Senator Casey and Senator Santorum have both used their personal discernment at times to endorse candidates that are pro-choice. You cannot condemn one without the other.
Blessed Easter to all.
Katherine, do you honestly believe Planned Parenthood and Obama discourage teen pregnancy when they're okay with the distribution of contraceptives to or abortions for the the young?
Do you believe a baby, regardless of the way it comes into this world, is to be considered a punishment?
Katherine, do you honestly believe ...[Senator] Obama discourage[s] teen pregnancy?
Yes, I do.
Do you believe a baby,[born to a 15 year old girl], is to be considered a punishment?
If Senator McCain's votes are limited to those who shout "congratulations!" when an unmarried, 15 year old finds she is pregnant, he is going to lose the election.
It is always an unfortunate situation when a teenage, unmarried girl finds herself in a situation where she cannot properly care for her child. Motherhood should be a fully joyous event. It is not in these circumstances and that weighs heavily on a mother’s heart. Telling our children it is a wonderful thing to have a baby under these circumstances is not something I agree with. Helping them avoid such a situation is a virtue. When the situation does happen, denying the difficulties the mother know she will have is not a virtue. We need to be there ready to help and be supportive.
Katherine,
Katherine said...
I agree with Senator Obama that in today's society and culture we should be discouraging, not encouraging, 15 year old girls from having babies.
If only that's what Senatar "kill 'em to 9 months" Obama said, then you may be right... that's not what he said, and YOU know it. What he said was that having a baby was a punishment like getting an STD.
As a Catholic are you really that comfortable with the abortion regime? Do you not understand what it is that Obama wants to allow to be killed up to 9 months in or out of the womb? Do you not believe all that the Church proposes for our instruction?
You think we should be supportive of a teenage mother murdering her child?
We should encourage EVERY pregnant woman to have her baby, we should be discouraging teenagers from becoming pregnant, and the only way to do that is through abstinence education (something else that the anti-life Obama opposes strenuously along with health care funding for pregnant women to KEEP their children).
Oh the hypocrisy.
God Bless,
Matt
I don’t believe anyone is happy with the situation of an unwed, teen pregnancy. But calling a child (human being) a “punishment” certainly lets you know how much Senator Obama values life.
I agree with Peter that Obama and Planned Parenthood are only encouraging teen pregnancy by promoting the lie of “safe sex.” (The phrase itself is repugnant- when a married couple is actively trying to conceive, are they not being “safe?” But that’s for another post.)
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you promote “safe sex,” you are promoting sex. When you promote sex, albeit, “safer,” you are inadvertently promoting what may be a result of it. In this case, that would be teen pregnancy.
No matter what Obama wants for his daughters, it's not up to him--there are natural consequences to certain actions that people take. Leaving the abortion issue aside, I am especially wondering how he is planning on keeping his girls safe from STD's, as I read that one in four teenage girls nowadays have one. That's so sobering. Matt is completely right that education about abstinence is what we need--the only kind of safe sex for children is no sex at all!
there are natural consequences to certain actions that people take.
Exactly. You, I and Senator Obama are all agreed on this.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-no-one-has-supported-president-bush-on-iraq-more-than-i-have/
Katherine,
the word consequence means simply that it follows, it makes no value judgement, although your candidate, and by extension you, as his surrogate do so - it's a natural consequence of YOUR profoundly evil position.
ps. every year abortionists in the US murder far more babies due to YOUR position on abortion than have died in Iraq since the US invasion. In fact, your buddies have killed nearly twice the population of Iraq since abortion was legalized... are you proud?
Matt,
I want you to know that I deeply love you as a brother in Christ.
Kate
I don't want to stir up the hornet's nest any more, but I don't understand this whole dispute about "natural consequences" of certain actions. What did you mean by that comment, Healthily Sanguine? Certainly, you didn't mean that having an abortion is a "natural consequence" of getting pregnant as a teen and therefore Obama isn't culpable for theoretically supporting his daughters in that decision (should it ever take place). Perhaps a little clarification would help Katherine and Matt have a more constructive argument. :)
Sorry for being vague! I simply meant, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse is often preganancy; plus, the natural results of all this promiscuity we see nowadays are sexually transmitted diseases. Of course, by contraception (I'm thinking birth control pills here, which is pretty common since it's under the girl's control to do) one could frustrate the plan of the Creator--and by abortion, ignore it entirely and gravely set aside His laws of morality by murdering an unborn child. However, I also wanted to make the point that even if you do all these things that is not going to make you "safe" from the results of widespread promiscuity we have in our culture. That's the real problem and that's what needs to be aborted and put an end to. Obama doesn't want his daughters to be "punished" with the natural consequences of their actions, but really he should recognize that if, through a lack of formation and education on HIS part (because it is the parents' direct responsibility to raise their children according to the laws of God), they decide to engage in premarital sex they should be prepared to face the consequences.
Thanks for clearing that up, HS. I completely agree with everything you've said.
It is good we are all in agreement here. As the first person to comment said “teach them first about values and morals." I can't think of any better advice than that.
I would like to redirect the discussion as it seems it’s gone off on a tangent of agreeing on teaching our children morality, of which we cannot be in more agreement. However, we are faced with a politician who is grossly pro-choice, pro-death, especially if a teen makes a mistake – he wouldn’t want them to be “punished with a baby.”
It’s evident that Senator Obama’s record shows he is a vehement supporter of the pro-choice cause, subsidized and promoted by evil institutions like Planned Parenthood, voting against the born-alive infant protection act, sanctioning infanticide, and willing to approve abortion for his own children, so they may not be “punished with a baby.”
Considering these facts, how can a Catholic support a politician with a pro-death record like Senator Obama under the auspices of proportionality, which is what I assume Katherine and others like her are doing?
Peter,
I think you have errors in both your assumptions and what you believe to be facts. But nevertheless, I am glad we are all in agreement with Senator Obama's statement “I am going to teach them first about values and morals" and as to the undesirability of umarried 15 year olds having children.
Thanks, Katherine. If I have any false assumptions or mixed facts, I would only appreciate your correction.
Kate, what do you think of Obama's vehement pro-abort stance? As a Catholic, how do you reconcile God's moral law with your politics, your vote?
Also, for those who may not know or understand what proportionality is within our context, Read this as well as this.
God bless.
Kate, what do you think of Obama's vehement pro-abort stance? As a Catholic, how do you reconcile God's moral law with your politics, your vote?
Sadly, none of the major candidates are where we would hope that they would be on life issues. In an imperfect world, we lay faithful must try as best we can to promote virtue in civil, family, economic and community life.
I consider abortion a grave social evil and wish to see unborn life protected. Like Senator McCain himself (as well as President Bush, Senators Santorum and Brownback and the late Rep. Hyde), I have supported candidates with various views on abortion policy.
I am thankful to God that we have people who hold a Catholic Social Witness in many parts of society -- the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I am part of the Pro-Life Caucus of the Obama campaign and have deep respect for those in the McCain campaign who witness to the Church's call for an end to the war in Iraq, economic justice and the sancitity of marriage as a life long committment.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
I've posted a few items that may be relevant to this discussion, including "The Barack-ing Point?" (http://www.cufblog.org/?p=282) and "An Irresponsible Endorsement" (http://www.cufblog.org/?p=310).
Kate, you make several good points. However, several red herrings keep coming up. For example, I think it's safe to say that all candidates are opposed to teenage pregnancy (some as a matter of sexual morality, others perhaps more out of reliance on informing teens about contraception and abortion).
Also, I don't hear anybody saying that McCain or anybody else is the ideal candidate.
When challenged, however, on actively supporting Barack Obama, you have on several occasions cited Republicans who are generally pro-life but who have endorsed pro-choice candidates in other situations.
On a rhetorical or political level that sort of misdirection makes a lot of sense, but the issue at hand isn't what other politicians have done, but our own responsibility as Catholics when faced with a candidate who supports an intrinsically grave evil such as abortion.
During the last presidential cycle, Pope Benedict XVI, while still serving as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, then-Archbishop of Washington. The memorandum contained this statement:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Hey, I'm not "single issue," but issues do need to be prioritized. That's where "proportionality" comes in, because in effect we're talking about a situation known in ethics as "double effect."
To keep this short (perhaps too late for that anyway!), let's just say that it's highly doubtful, using the criteria provided by the Pope, that a Catholic can, in good conscience, knowingly support a candidate as extreme as Barack Obama is on abortion, especially when there is a legitimate candidate who does not support the pro-abortion agenda.
And btw, I'm willing to cut Sen. Obama some slack when it comes to the unfortunate statement regarding teen pregnancy, though it certainly doesn't uphold the God-given dignity of the child in the womb. But we can't cut him slack when it comes to his public record in support of abortion, including partial-birth abortion.
Kate, you make several good points.
Thank you, Leon. And I find in you a man who is truly interested in a civil discussion on this topic among practicing Catholics sharing the means of their discernment. Where that has not been present, I think little is accomplished other than hardening people in their positions. Please remember me in your prayers as I to you will in mine.
However, several red herrings keep coming up. For example, I think it's safe to say that all candidates are opposed to teenage pregnancy...And btw, I'm willing to cut Sen. Obama some slack when it comes to the unfortunate statement regarding teen pregnancy,
Thank you. Senator Obama has some serious shortcomings on the matter of life issues. His extemporaneous remark on this issue is a distraction rather than a meaningful element to that discussion.
Also, I don't hear anybody saying that McCain or anybody else is the ideal candidate.
I don't hear anyone (here anyway) saying anything at all about Senator McCain. Some Catholics are not participating the presidential election this year or not planning to vote for either of the major party candidates. I fully respect that decision. I have my own beliefs as why it is best to "be in the game" but honor their discernment. Others are supporting McCain. I respect that as well, but it seems to have a discussion from that standpoint requires both candidates to be examined.
When challenged, however, on actively supporting Barack Obama, you have on several occasions cited Republicans who are generally pro-life but who have endorsed pro-choice candidates in other situations.
On a rhetorical or political level that sort of misdirection makes a lot of sense, but the issue at hand isn't what other politicians have done, but our own responsibility as Catholics when faced with a candidate who supports an intrinsically grave evil such as abortion.
Well, some of those politicians I mentioned are also Catholics (Santorum, Brownback, and Hyde). I'm trying to give real world examples so I'm limited to my personal friends (whom the readers here likely don't know) or people in public life.
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.
I assure you I have never in my life voted for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.
But maybe if you elaborate on the advancement of life issues with either McCain or Obama as president, we have this basis for further discussion.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
I think I'm going to start a blog called Catholics For Hitler. Here's why:
1) I'm not a single issue voter (While I personally value the sanctity of human life, we all know that politicians are never going to be perfect in terms of life issues)
2) Hitler was a great speaker and leader. He unified a country.
3) He got Germany out of a Depression.
And really, the only person he physically killed was himself.
Come on! Who's with me??
Come on! Who's with me??
Does Senator McCain beleive that Barack Obama is like Hitler?
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Even the worst human being (in this example, Hitler), has good qualities. It is true that Hitler "unified a country." He was a good speaker. But let's go beyond that and get to what is going on- in Hitler's case, he was responsible for the death of millions.
Mr. Obama may very well be a gifted speaker, but we are not electing an orator. He is for the killing of unborn babies, even up to 9 months.
Katherine, I can't help but conclude that you are OK with this. This fact doesn't stop you from supporting him. (And who says we have to support John McCain, by the way??)
The American Left was enamored by Uncle Joe Stalin, even in the 1950s. Although it was becoming clear that he was responsible for the deaths of 60-80 MILLION people, they didn't want to believe it.
When are we going to wake up and realize that politicians like Senators Obama and Clinton are actively cooperating in the death of MILLIONS of unborn babies.
My question to you would be- is it OK to say Catholics can be for Hitler? Stalin? Where do we draw the line and say- you know what?- I'm not going to support this person?
Carley --
Two matters. Are you aware of the internet rule of Godwin's Law?
Concerning the American Left and Stalin, research Msgr. Charles Owen Rice and the fight for Local 601. I was there and working with Father Rice.
Katherine,
This will be my last post on the subject. It's obvious that you are refusing to address my point.
And, in regards to Hitler... the analogy is not meant to be inflammatory. I am simply asking you a question- which you did not respond to. If politicians support the killing of millions of people, what's the difference between supporting them and, say, a man like Hitler?
Do you believe that abortion is the killing of human life? If the answer is yes, then pro-abortion politicians are responsibile for the deaths of millions of lives. If you say no, then you are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's where I'm coming from...
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for your reply. Let me follow up on just a couple items.
(1) I want to assure you that I did not intend to accuse you of supporting Sen. Obama "because of" his permissive views on abortion, which of course would be tantamount to accusing you of formal cooperation in sin. Rather, I provided the entire section of Card. Ratzinger's statement so that the context would not be lost. I apologize for any confusion on that point.
Even so, one who supports Sen. Obama for other reasons would also be sinning if such reasons are not "proportionate." In other words, their needs to be a proportionately weighty reason to justify the vote to counter the bad effect of electing someone who would militantly advance the "culture of death."
(2) The calculus here is not an exact science. Clearly to support Sen. Obama because he's African-American, relatively young and handsome, a Democrat, an engaging speaker, and so forth are not sufficiently substantive reasons to support him and certainly are not "proportionate reasons."
Now there are plenty of substantive issues, including Iraq, national security, the environment, the economy, etc. where the candidates differ. But all of these issues are matters of prudential judgment where we can disagree and both still be good Catholics. As important as these issues are, none are cut-and-dried, good vs. evil, "non-negotiable" issues in the way that abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage are. Given the fact that while Sen. McCain isn't perfect on these issues, his administration would still be far superior to an Obama administration on these issues. I have not heard a compelling case for the morality of a vote for Sen. Obama under such circumstances.
(3) In assessing the morality of a vote for Sen. Obama, I still say that it's misdirection to point to conservative Catholic politicians (with whom you probably disagree on many issues) as the "answer key" to this moral issue. They may or may not have been right in what they did. I do note that in Sen. Santorum's case, his support of Sen. Specter was in exchange for the latter's support in judicial hearings, which led to the difficult confirmation of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, two of the finest Supreme Court appointments of the past century. Without Specter's support, they might not have gotten through. I would say that this political calculation, while offensive to some purists, was at least morally justifiable because of these special circumstances.
(4) In this particular case, though, there is no such trade off. Indeed, on life issues Sen. Obama is worst-case scenario. He will impose a pro-abortion litmus test on judicial appointments, he says he "will not yield" on the issue of partial-birth abortion, and he insists that he will use the bully pulpit to proactively thrust his secularist views on cultural, family, and life issues on the American public. Your support of him notwithstanding such predictably disastrous results tells me you weigh other issues more heavily, which is your "right" as an American, but of dubious legitimacy from the standpoint of Catholic morality.
(5) I understand Carley's point, and I agree that abortion is the number one human rights issue. However, I would avoid drawing the comparison between Hitler and Obama despite the undeniable parallels, because the inflammatory nature of such statements can easily break down dialogue. Perhaps I'm influenced here by a dialogue I'm having with some atheists on another blog who like to overstate the Pope's background in the Hitler youth. Anyway, I think Sen. Obama's untenable views on life issues can and should be critiqued on their own merit (or, should I say, lack thereof).
Leon,
I just wanted to thank you for visiting our blog and putting forth your thoughts regarding this issue. Your comments have been not only intelligent and intelligible but also charitable and honest, which provides a good lesson for all of us.
And you've helped me to really grasp the "proportionality clause" in a practical way...so thank you, and I hope you will visit us from time to time in the future.
God bless.
Dear Leon,
Let me respond to you, as it seems you are a civil and charitable person.
(1) I want to assure you that I did not intend to accuse you of supporting Sen. Obama "because of" his permissive views on abortion...
Thank you for that clarification. I deeply appreciate it.
Even so, one who supports Sen. Obama for other reasons would also be sinning if such reasons are not "proportionate." In other words, their needs to be a proportionately weighty reason to justify the vote to counter the bad effect of electing someone who would militantly advance the "culture of death."
It would be a point of debate as to if Senator Obama would "militantly advance the culture of death". I think most everyone would agree that statement is broad and vague enought that people of good will could disagree as to its application to the Senator.
And the discernment of proportionately is a matter that, by the very nature of the question, faithful Catholics will come to different conclusions.
(2) The calculus here is not an exact science.
It might be better said, it is not a science at all, nor a calculus, but an art.
Clearly to support Sen. Obama because he's African-American, relatively young and handsome, a Democrat, an engaging speaker, and so forth are not sufficiently substantive reasons to support him and certainly are not "proportionate reasons."
Yes, I've not heard anyone here advance any such reasoning.
Now there are plenty of substantive issues, including Iraq, national security, the environment, the economy, etc. where the candidates differ. But all of these issues are matters of prudential judgment where we can disagree and both still be good Catholics.
Possibly. If one supports the war in Iraq for the reason one is heavily invested in the armaments industry and stands to financially profit from it, there is an objective, non-negotiable moral wrong there. If one supports lax immigration laws because one employs illegals as cheap labor and achieves profit by not providing a safe workplace, there is an objective, non-negotiable moral wrong there as well. If one supports laws which allow divorce (which is objectively and non-negotiatabily immoral) because actual experience proves the lack of legal (civil) divorce does not actually preserve families, but allows men to abandon their families with making a financial settlement for them and reducing innocent wives and children to poverty, there is a matter there which requires discernment and judgment, even while acknowleding the non-negotiable moral principle of the immorality of divorce.
As important as these issues are, none are cut-and-dried, good vs. evil, "non-negotiable" issues in the way that abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage are. Given the fact that while Sen. McCain isn't perfect on these issues, his administration would still be far superior to an Obama administration on these issues.
I think you have found not a conclusion (Sen. McCain isn't perfect on these issues, his administration would still be far superior to an Obama administration on these issues) but a topic for further discernment and discussion.
I have not heard a compelling case for the morality of a vote for Sen. Obama under such circumstances.
I have no doubt that is true. And I have every confidence you do not believe that I have sinned because of what you have not heard.
(3) In assessing the morality of a vote for Sen. Obama, I still say that it's misdirection to point to conservative Catholic politicians (with whom you probably disagree on many issues) as the "answer key" to this moral issue. They may or may not have been right in what they did.
If they may or may not have been right, then their actions were not objectively and non-negotiablely immoral.
I do note that in Sen. Santorum's case, his support of Sen. Specter was in exchange for the latter's support in judicial hearings,...
In the English language, that is what we call a 'negotiation' leading to a 'deal'.
I would say that this political calculation, while offensive to some purists, was at least morally justifiable because of these special circumstances.
A political calculation in politics is not special, it is normative.
(5) I would avoid drawing the comparison between Hitler and Obama despite the undeniable parallels, because the inflammatory nature of such statements can easily break down dialogue.
I deeply appreciate your civility and your admirable concern for Christian dialogue. I know God will reward you for your charity.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
Hi Kate,
Thanks for your very kind personal remarks. I don't typically respond more than twice to a particular post, but I thought I would comment further because I know I wasn't as clear as I might have been regarding "proportionate reasons." So here goes.
We went through the bit about voting for Sen. Obama "because of" his position on abortion, which we agreed would be wrong. (Technically, it would be "formal cooperation" in evil. Serious business.)
But voting for Sen. Obama for other reasons, given his position on abortion, would still be material cooperation with evil, because a vote for him would still advance the pro-abortion position. So far, so good.
Material cooperation with evil isn't always sinful. So it really doesn't matter that in other contexts Catholics may have morally supported a candidate who favors abortion rights.
But the key idea here is that for material cooperation to not be sinful, there must be a "proportionate reason" for choosing a course of action that would have the unintended effect of cooperating with pro-abortion efforts.
Again, the absence of a "perfect candidate" doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do the good that we can do, and surely it's legitimate to work for incremental safeguards for the unborn (such as protecting them at least in the third trimester!).
Sen. McCain opposes abortion. Sen. Obama is very protective of abortion rights. You know I'm not exaggerating here, as you yourself said "Senator Obama has some serious shortcomings on the matter of life issues." I've found his comments on the subject downright frightening, and I have every reason to believe he will act upon such comments if he were president.
So, given the wide discrepancy between the candidates on this issue, and trying as a Catholic (not as a Democrat or Republican apologist) to apply the principle enunciated by the Pope, I don't see how a vote for Sen. Obama can be morally justified.
I'm the first to admit (well, maybe the second, after my wife!) that I'm not God, or even the Pope. Maybe there is some way to morally justify a vote for Sen. Obama. And even if not, I'm not judging you or any other Catholic who ends up voting for Sen. Obama.
But I am saying this: There is a serious moral issue at stake here, and your comments about immigration or being invested in the arms industry as well as other comments that seem to deflect the issue suggest to me that you either don't understand the principle or you don't want to "go there" because in your heart of hearts you want to support Sen. Obama. You know, I can even understand that. But having a blog entitled "Catholics for Obama" can be very misleading to believers and non-believers alike--especially if it can't be demonstrated that a vote for Sen. Obama can be morally justified.
Well, you've heard enough from me, and I'm turning into a pumpkin. God bless all of you!
Post a Comment